This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is/was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s) Kiannagorman will be working on it. Rolarreola will be peer reviewing it.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 180 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Contents

Shouldn't historical and anthropological descriptions of witchcraft cite sources from historical and anthropological sources? Why then are we treating this author Judika Illes as reliable when it's obvious that a lot of what she's written on the subject is bunk? Her descriptions of witches in pre-Christian Russia is impossibly detailed, considering that nothing about these beliefs was written down before the Christianization of Russia, and thus highly suspect! While some of them may conceivably contain a grain of truth based on extrapolation from current Russian folk tales and practices, it seems just as likely that they were entirely fabricated by a quack. A quick look at her Wikipedia entry pretty much sums up my point: the only training she's had is in English, communication, and aromatherapy! Nothing even close to the realm of anthropology or religious studies. She may be a practitioner of modern magic and miscellaneous spirituality, but I would not consider her a valid source on pre-Christian Russian paganism, especially something as specific and covert as witchcraft. 173.57.54.188 (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Illes book is marginal--Booklist (by professional librarians ) says "Academic libraries with extensive witchcraft collections may wish to consider this volume if only for the bibliography. Public libraries seeking a popular reference work on witchcraft could do much worse than this one." To read some serious scholarship on Russian witchcraft look at Ryan, William Francis (1999). The Bathhouse at Midnight: A Historical Survey of Magic and Divination in Russia. Penn State U. Press. p. 75. [it has some of the same stories]. Rjensen (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few edits to try and improve the global representation and a few other issues, mainly in the intro.

The key issue is, it is very poor in its characterization of the topic. Academics routinely emphasize the diversity of belief and the difficulty of definition, but we say none of that. Therefore the current intro is basically a view through Western eyes and not much more. It describes "faculties" (skills), but the existence of such "faculties" is at best one view of several significant views, and most texts emphasize the difficulty of defining witchcraft, and the pitfalls of imposing Western concepts and distinctions that poorly reflect non-European "witchcraft" concepts. In addition the existence of such skills must not be assumed - presumably, the authoritative view on existence would be that they have not been proven scientifically. Words such as "superstition", "occult", "sorcery" and the like are not the same as "witchcraft" either, across cultures, but this crucial aspect of mistranslation is never mentioned either.

I'm also going to have a go at reducing globalization issues in the body too, by moving a few sections around.

I've had a go. Please help to improve it :) FT2(Talk | email) 05:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Kianna, Very good use of sources, almost each sentence of your contribution is back up with a credible source. Just a few things, maybe try finding some kind of image that relates to Italian witchcraft. You talk about Cassandra, I think she needs a better introduction or it needs rewording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolarreola (talk • contribs) 03:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)